In a second appeal regarding a partition suit, the appellant claimed an interest in properties alleged to be ancestral. The High Court found them to be the self-acquired properties of the father, which were subsequently sold to the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' rejection of the partition claim.
Second appeal dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.02.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 17.02.2017 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.377 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
Vijaya ... Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
Pichandi ... Respondent/1 st Defendant
Govinda Gounder (died)
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 made in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010 made in O.S.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
In this second appeal, the plaintiff has impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 made in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010 made in O.S.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi.
proceeded to divide the properties. Therefore, even assuming that the said document is a genuine document, inasmuch as the partition seems to have been entered under the said document, it could be seen that if it is to attain validity, it should be registered as per the law. But the same is an unregistered document. That apart, it is also found that the plaintiff has not examined reliable witness in support of the said arrangement marked as Ex.A1. Still the plaintiff has also not placed any material to hold that Ex.A1 as such had been acted upon and pursuant to the same, the parties have taken possession and been enjoying the properties as mentioned therein. In any event, as adverted to earlier, there is no reference about the suit properties or the character of the suit properties in Ex.A1 and when the validity of the same has also not been substantiated by the plaintiff, it is found that no reliance could be attached to the same for upholding the plaintiff's claim.
At the end, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sms
To
1. The Sub Court, Vellore, Vellore District.
2. The District Munsif Court, Katpadi.
nm(CO)
md(06/03/2017)
S. A.No.377 of 2011 and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a share in the suit properties alleged to be ancestral family properties.
Whether the arrangement dated 20.03.2000 regarding division of properties is valid and applicable to the suit properties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijaya
Pichandi
T.Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
